Since Queen Elizabeth II became Queen in 1952 most of the British Empire has ended. With the handover of Hong King back to the Chinese in 1997 marking the end of the British Empire (according to Historians).

Even after the British Empire some nations in the world still have the Queen as "Head of State" with a Governor-General to represent the Queen since the Queen lives in The United Kingdom.

Amongst those countries that still have the Queen as their head of state are:

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
The Solomon Islands
Tuvalu

and of course, The United Kingdom...

With that being said some of these countries have republican movements that are very much on the rise. Especially in the Caribbean nations. My question to you all is when do you think the Commonwealth Realms will come to a end? When do you think the United Kingdom will be left standing alone? Do you ever think that countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will ditch the House of Windsor? What is your opinion on any of this?

I think that it is likely Australia will be the first one to become a republic and if others do follow, it will be a very gradual transition rather them all doing it at the same time. Each nation has its own parliament and individual issues at home to deal with aside from constitutional changes and so in a practical sense I just cannot see them all deciding at the same time.

After reading these two articles, it seems as though some of the Caribbean nations will be the first to go on that list. At the moment they have huge republicanism movements that are happening. And some of the Caribbean nations have no monarchist leagues.

Australia will not go until after the Queen dies, I think...

RJ TAYLER

08-24-2010 09:04 AM

I think things 'might' just shift the other way this century and many Commonwealth Republics become realms anyway!

Smart

12-21-2010 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wedmonds
(Post 1126646)

Since Queen Elizabeth II became Queen in 1952 most of the British Empire has ended. With the handover of Hong King back to the Chinese in 1997 marking the end of the British Empire (according to Historians).

Even after the British Empire some nations in the world still have the Queen as "Head of State" with a Governor-General to represent the Queen since the Queen lives in The United Kingdom.

Amongst those countries that still have the Queen as their head of state are:

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
The Solomon Islands
Tuvalu

and of course, The United Kingdom...

With that being said some of these countries have republican movements that are very much on the rise. Especially in the Caribbean nations. My question to you all is when do you think the Commonwealth Realms will come to a end? When do you think the United Kingdom will be left standing alone? Do you ever think that countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will ditch the House of Windsor? What is your opinion on any of this?

I think it is probable that several of these countries will become Republics following Eliz' death. The others will likely follow suit after 5-10 years. (mostly due to the unpopularity of Charles, and the likelihood that Australia will launch a Domino effect)

Lumutqueen

12-21-2010 11:00 AM

How unpopular is Charles everywhere else?
Being in the Commonwealth benefits the countries more than hinders them.

Iluvbertie

12-22-2010 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen
(Post 1178938)

How unpopular is Charles everywhere else?
Being in the Commonwealth benefits the countries more than hinders them.

Being a republic has nothing to do with being in the Commonwealth. The majority of countries in the Commonwealth are republics.

As for how unpopular Charles is? Not very where it matters but he isn't hugely popular either - more neutral rather than anything else these days.

Lumutqueen

12-22-2010 04:26 AM

I never said it did have anything to do with being in the commonwealth, but I am correct in saying that being in the commonwealth of realms or nations benefits the countries?

And being neutral is better than being hated.

Simeon

12-23-2010 11:19 AM

Regardless of popularity they are pretty well entrenched in places like Canada. Ratification of law with regards to the Queen requires unanimous consent by all provinces. Could be easier to draft a new constitution or become the 51st state. j/k, point is the monarchy will be around Canada for quite a while.

Smart

12-24-2010 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen
(Post 1179420)

I never said it did have anything to do with being in the commonwealth, but I am correct in saying that being in the commonwealth of realms or nations benefits the countries?

And being neutral is better than being hated.

Being in the Commonwealth of Realms has no inherent benefit, especially since the R. Family is likely to visit your country more if it is a realm, than if it is merely an ex-colony (Commonwealth of Nations). This is especially noticeable in the number of royal visits to Canada, in comparison to India. These visits cost enormous amounts of money. As for being within the Commonwealth of Nations - the largest benefit is that most of its members are developing countries - and as such, such a close affiliation with a former superpower and developed country is excellent. This is especially profound when comparing Britain's old African colonies (and their stability as nations) and France's old African colonies. (cf. South Africa vs Ivory Coast).

The main negative in there being realms is it belittles the given country's home-rule and independence, by placing a foreigner as its Head of State. This is mostly the fault of colonialism and imperialism, not Constitutional Monarchy or Constituent Countries (that for example, The Netherlands have).

Note - I'm by no means attacking the RF/Monarchy, just attacking the "Realms" concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simeon
(Post 1180003)

Regardless of popularity they are pretty well entrenched in places like Canada. Ratification of law with regards to the Queen requires unanimous consent by all provinces. Could be easier to draft a new constitution or become the 51st state. j/k, point is the monarchy will be around Canada for quite a while.

Canada is the only realm that has an active presence of Monarchists. This is beginning to wane, according to recent Gallup polls.

As for becoming a 51st state - there is a Canadian org trying to make that happen - United North America

Le Prince Royale

03-29-2011 04:28 AM

I think the Commonwealth of nations will continue till the end of the world (whenever that is) and that countries like Australia and New Zealand will not become a republic. The Commonwealth is fundamental for the development of smaller nations especially those in the Pacific. With the Commonwealth gone, no more Commonwealth games and such.

I think the Commonwealth of nations will continue till the end of the world (whenever that is) and that countries like Australia and New Zealand will not become a republic. The Commonwealth is fundamental for the development of smaller nations especially those in the Pacific. With the Commonwealth gone, no more Commonwealth games and such.

Some excerpts
As things stand, when Queen Elizabeth II dies there may be nobody to succeed her on her Australian throne. Australia may suddenly be in a constitutional limbo, with no monarch, no Governor-General, and no parliament to pass laws

The Statute of Westminster of 1931 requires that the "Dominions" be consulted in matters concerning the succession to the British Crown, and that is why Australia was consulted about the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936. But are we a British Dominion still? The Australia Act of 1986 declares specifically that "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory".

This is the nearest thing we have to a "Declaration of Independence". It seems that the British may again have been consulting us about effecting change in the succession to the British throne. That is a delightful courtesy, but like so much of the constitutional structures that we inherited as a British Dominion, it is of another age.

What would happen if, after the Queen's death, the widely-expected succession of Prince Charles to the throne of Australia were to be challenged in our courts? What legal right would he have to claim to be our monarch? Perhaps ways might be found to argue a case in his favour, but it might bring about a nasty and perhaps lengthy constitutional crisis. If Charles's right to be King of Australia were under challenge, what would be the position of the Governor-General in the interregnum? Could she or he be the King's representative if there were no "lawful and undoubted King" of Australia? Without a Governor-General, there would have to be doubt whether the Parliament could make laws, or whether it could even sit.

Can we afford to wait until the Queen dies before we take action to cope with this foreseeable constitutional problem? Would it not be sensible to avoid the possibility of such a constitutional crisis by deciding right now who will succeed the Queen of Australia under Australian law?

I hope that the govt of Australia creates contingency plans when the queen dies.

Assuming if it is true then will the parliament act of 1982 of canada have the same problem?

lucien

04-29-2011 02:21 AM

Apparently the symphaty for a republic in Australia at present is at a all-time low according to the latest polls.

And your line has to be adjusted Pain,

In a Monarchy the People make the Law,through Parliament and the Monarch gives the Law,any Law,his/her signature regardless if he/she agrees on it.This just to emphasize the inpartiality of the Sovereign on matters politic.
In a republic Law is bought by the Trumps of this world.....

thomaspaine

04-29-2011 02:33 AM

O for gods sake lets debate on the topic and not my sign and by the way you are wrong,the monarch has refused to sign laws but now they do it less subtle.You cannot argue thomas paine and his surname is PAINE and not pain and this line is more than 200 years old;Read "common sense" by thomas paine.If you want to debate then please visit my thread on "case against monarchy".

lucien

04-29-2011 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomaspaine
(Post 1241715)

O for gods sake lets debate on the topic and not my sign and by the way you are wrong,the monarch has refused to sign laws but now they do it less subtle.You cannot argue thomas paine and his surname is PAINE and not pain and this line is more than 200 years old;Read "common sense" by thomas paine.If you want to debate then please visit my thread on "case against monarchy".

Sorry,I won't as I oppose your ideas Pain.They're rambling.:smile:

Lumutqueen

04-29-2011 06:56 AM

The fact that you started this thread with "if the Queen dies" shows what it actually means. She isn't going to live forever.

Iluvbertie

04-29-2011 09:24 AM

Clause 2 of the Australian Constitution gives Charles the right to be King of Australia assuming that the population of the nation hasn't previously voted to become a republic.

This Clause states:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

This document predates the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act and thus isn't covered by the extract quoted above - "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory".

The Constitution was passed in 1900 and thus predates any legislation dated 1986 and thus isn't affected by the Australia Act.

Thus Charles' accession won't cause a constitutional crisis because the Australian Constitution clearly says that the Head of State of Australia is the Head of State of Britain.

However, if Britain wishes to change the succession laws then Australia will have to independently pass the same law to have it take effect. So if Britain decides to go for gender blind succession they will only do so after being assured that the other nations affected will also pass the same legislation - otherwise there could be constitutional crises in a number of countries.

Smart

04-30-2011 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen
(Post 1243247)

The fact that you started this thread with "if the Queen dies" shows what it actually means. She isn't going to live forever.

I just heard a lover of the British branch of Saxe, Coburg and Gotha, say that 'Eliz will live til 110. If she doesn't abdicate, that means another 25 years!